Exit strategies: optimising feasible surveillance for detection, elimination, and ongoing prevention of COVID-19 community transmission

  1. K. Lokuge
  2. E. Banks
  3. S. Davis
  4. L. Roberts
  5. T. Street
  6. D. O’Donovan
  7. G. Caleo
  8. K. Glass

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Following implementation of strong containment measures, several countries and regions have low detectable community transmission of COVID-19. We developed an efficient, rapid, and scalable surveillance strategy to detect remaining COVID-19 community cases through exhaustive identification of every active transmission chain. We identified measures to enable early detection and effective management of any reintroduction of transmission once containment measures are lifted to ensure strong containment measures do not require reinstatement.

Methods

We compared efficiency and sensitivity to detect community transmission chains through testing of the following: hospital cases; fever, cough and/or ARI testing at community/primary care; and asymptomatic testing; using surveillance evaluation methods and mathematical modelling, varying testing capacities, reproductive number (R) and weekly cumulative incidence of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 respiratory symptoms using data from Australia. We assessed system requirements to identify all transmission chains and follow up all cases and primary contacts within each chain, per million population.

Results

Assuming 20% of cases are asymptomatic and 30% of symptomatic COVID-19 cases present for testing, with R  = 2.2, a median of 14 unrecognised community cases (8 infectious) occur when a transmission chain is identified through hospital surveillance versus 7 unrecognised cases (4 infectious) through community-based surveillance. The 7 unrecognised community upstream cases are estimated to generate a further 55–77 primary contacts requiring follow-up. The unrecognised community cases rise to 10 if 50% of cases are asymptomatic. Screening asymptomatic community members cannot exhaustively identify all cases under any of the scenarios assessed. The most important determinant of testing requirements for symptomatic screening is levels of non-COVID-19 respiratory illness. If 4% of the community have respiratory symptoms, and 1% of those with symptoms have COVID-19, exhaustive symptomatic screening requires approximately 11,600 tests/million population using 1/4 pooling, with 98% of cases detected (2% missed), given 99.9% sensitivity. Even with a drop in sensitivity to 70%, pooling was more effective at detecting cases than individual testing under all scenarios examined.

Conclusions

Screening all acute respiratory disease in the community, in combination with exhaustive and meticulous case and contact identification and management, enables appropriate early detection and elimination of COVID-19 community transmission. An important component is identification, testing, and management of all contacts, including upstream contacts (i.e. potential sources of infection for identified cases, and their related transmission chains). Pooling allows increased case detection when testing capacity is limited, even given reduced test sensitivity. Critical to the effectiveness of all aspects of surveillance is appropriate community engagement, messaging to optimise testing uptake and compliance with other measures.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.19.20071217: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1186/s12916-021-01934-5
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.19.20071217v1 on medRxiv